輸人又輸陣

上一篇留言超過200則, 看起來很麻煩了, 所以開一篇新的轉換話題。孟晚舟引渡案的第一回合裁決了, 判詞不算長, 我貼出背景的頭幾段, 要看全文請按連結自己入去看。

[1] Wanzhou Meng asks for an order discharging her from the extradition process on the basis that, as a matter of law, the “double criminality” requirement for extradition cannot be met.

[2] The United States seeks Ms. Meng’s extradition for prosecution in the Eastern District of New York for conduct that the Minister of Justice for Canada (in the Authority to Proceed, or ATP) says corresponds to fraud contrary to s. 380(1)(a) of the Criminal Code of Canada. In the committal hearing, the Attorney General must therefore show, among other things, that the conduct in which Ms. Meng is alleged to have engaged would have amounted to fraud, had that conduct taken place in Canada.

[3] Ms. Meng says that the alleged conduct could not have amounted to fraud in Canada because it relates entirely to the effects of US economic sanctions against Iran, and at the relevant time Canada had no such sanctions (just as it has none now).

[4] The Attorney General counters first, that the elements of the offence of fraud in Canada can be made out, on the allegations, without reference to US sanctions against Iran; and second, that in any event the sanctions may properly give background or context to the alleged conduct and explain why it mattered.

[5] For the reasons I will give, I find that the allegations depend on the effects of US sanctions. However, I conclude that those effects may play a part in the determination of whether double criminality is established. For that reason, Ms. Meng’s application will be dismissed.

( United States v Meng, 2020 BCSC 785)

現階段只是純法律觀點的初步爭拗, 引渡程序的具體爭拗還未展開, 加上訴程序, 搞兩三年才知會否引渡。這裁決只涉究竟引渡是否符合double criminality的要求(即美國指孟欺詐, 若從加國引渡, 此行為在加國也屬違法才符合引渡的基本條件, 所以叫double criminality) 。在判詞中, 法官也多次表明, 美方指控是未經證實的:

[19] Before turning to the legal principles that apply, I emphasize once again that the allegations found in the ROC and SROC that I have just outlined are unproven. They are nonetheless to be taken at face value for the purpose of assessing whether the double criminality requirement is met.

單是double criminality這一點, 孟晚舟一定會上訴, 因為有得拗。這不是我熟識的土壤, 不是不想評論, 而是不懂。我想評論中方的表現。

我評論中澳貿易戰的時候, 說共產黨贏了人輸了陣, 我沒解釋所講的意思, 就有人跳出來護主。大哥, 這不是蹲在地上滿嘴黃牙抽紙卷草煙的年代, 想成為泱泱大國, 不單指經濟體的排位, 也要展示大國的風範才可以贏人兼贏陣, 成為大佬之後才去表現像個牛屎飛施展淫威也未遲, 特朗普已是個展現人前折墮的好例子。共產黨在中澳磨擦上輸了甚麼? 澳洲提出徹查新冠病毒來源, 為免重蹈覆轍, 這漂亮合理的講法, 誰能抗拒? 大陸最抗拒的是澳洲提出調查人員可以直接進入任國家調查的權力及獨立於世衛。反正官方及民間都指摘病毒可能源於美國, 就沒理由抗拒調查, 一開始就應落落大方地同意, 然後訂出有利自己的條件, 現在給人的觀感是大勢所趨, 被逼同意, 然後在貿易上對袋鼠報復, 又小家又難看。一早就應該大原則同意徹查, 然後才慢慢地、從容不逼、氣定神閒地在貿易上作出刁難。像現在惡形惡相, 人家做了走狗還可說你bullying, 你說是不是贏了人輸了陣。我舉法庭處理案件為例。有些案件控方打算反對被告保釋, 但覺得法官批准保釋機會大, 腦筋就要變通一下, 跟辯方說: 我反對保釋架, 不如咁喇, 我唔反對都得...然後開些嚴苛的條件再討價還價, 就可以直接跟大老爺講雙方談妥的保釋條件, 這叫除笨有精, 以退為進。

中方在孟晚舟案裁決後的反應, 我看到南華早報這樣報導: 

In a statement on social media, China’s embassy said: “China hereby expresses strong dissatisfaction and firm opposition to this decision, and has made serious representations with Canada.”

“The United States and Canada, by abusing their bilateral extradition treaty and arbitrarily taking forceful measures against Ms Meng Wanzhou, gravely violated the lawful rights and interests of the said Chinese citizen,” the statement said.

“The purpose of the United States is to bring down Huawei and other Chinese high-tech companies, and Canada has been acting as an accomplice of the United States. The whole case is entirely a grave political incident.”

The statement urged Canada to “immediately release Ms Meng Wanzhou and allow her to return safely to China, and not go further down the wrong path”.

到了這年代, 外交詞令還是這樣, 就變成牛屎飛比併誰更膿包, 又無姿勢又不實際, 會立即放人嗎? 況且, 又可以請律師抗辯, 法律上的權利沒被剝奪, 指摘得強詞奪理。自己都有兩名人質在手, 做得漂亮一點就應一早開展檢控程序, 到現在才做又變成絕對的報復。說孟案是政治檢控, 這還用說, 美國大銀行大企業違規欺詐, 一般都只是懲罰性罰公司一大筆而不是檢控CEO/CFO的。中國大陸被圍攻, 華為被壓制, 也要展示基本風度, 這次是輸人又輸陣了。

前些時看到報導: The US could no longer win a war against China
...
Unnamed US defence sources reportedly told The Times that such a conflict was the scenario of a recent intensive war game session conducted by the Pentagon. The results, they say, were “eye-opening”.

The scenarios were different and diverse. Some involved clashes in the South and East China Seas. One – the worst-case scenario – was an out-and-out war in 2030.

The US reportedly came out second-best every time.

And that has serious implications for South-East Asia’s – and Australia’s – security.

...
護主的開心死了。我的即時反應: propaganda。把你的敵人描繪得更凶、威脅更大, 你和盟友更容易獲取國防撥款, 軍火商發達了, 入了股嗎? 

不想輸人和輸陣, 態度要強硬, 風度卻翩翩, 別像北韓那種新聞報導員一樣, 報新聞的時候好像便秘了幾天。輸人是大環境, 輸陣是自取的。